Mian ABDUL QADOOS vs FAQIRULLAH MINHAS and others
This civil revision petition challenged an order passed by the District Judge, Sheikhupura, which rejected the petitioner's application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the transfer of a pending civil suit. The petitioner alleged that the presiding Civil Judge was being influenced by the respondents and had expressed bias, claiming that the petitioner could not expect justice. Although the Civil Judge indicated he had no objection to the transfer due to the parties' lack of confidence, the District Judge exercised his discretion to refuse the transfer, finding no valid grounds. Upon review, the High Court held that the District Judge committed no material irregularity or illegality in exercising his discretionary jurisdiction. The Court further affirmed that a judge's willingness to have a case transferred, based solely on the parties' assertions of no confidence, does not constitute a sufficient legal ground for transfer. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, as no case for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was established.
- Does a presiding judge's statement that they have no objection to a case transfer constitute a sufficient ground for transferring the case?
- Can a High Court interfere with a District Judge's discretionary order refusing to transfer a case under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if no material irregularity is shown?
- Are mere assertions of bias and lack of confidence by parties sufficient grounds to warrant the transfer of a civil suit?
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' In this revision petition, the legality of order, dated 15-6-1993 passed by learned District Judge, Sheikhupura through which application made by the petitioner under section 24 of the C.P.C.
Seeking transfer of a civil case pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Siddique Tabassam, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura has been rejected.
2. The respondent No,3 made an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before Mr. Muhammad Siddique Tabassam, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura which is pending disposal in the said Court. The petitioner made an application under section 24, C.P.C. In which it was prayed that the said case should be transferred from the said Court to any other Court at Sheikhupura. The grounds urged in the said application were that the respondent No,3 had been declaring that she had made various complaints in the High Court against the said learned Civil Judge therefore, he would not be in a position to decide the case against her. It was also stated that Abdul Hamid Mir respondent herein was blackmailing the said Court on account of which the learned Civil Judge was being influenced and would not be in a position to do justice about which the learned Civil Judge had also been saying that he would decide the case against the present petitioner as such he did not expect justice from the said learned Civil Judge.
3. The learned District Judge called for the comments of the learned Civil Judge in which he denied the allegations made in the said application. However, he stated that in view of the fact that both the parties did not appear to have confidence and faith in him he had no objection if the case was transferred to any other Court.
4. The learned District Judge in his discretion after satisfying himself that no ground had been made out for transfer of the case rejected the application through the impugned order dated 15-6- 1993.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me that it is a fit case for interference under section 115, C.P.C. As the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura has not been shown to have committed any material irregularity and illegality in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in it under the law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this revision petition may be considered as an application directly made before this Court under section 24 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the case may be transferred from the Civil Court at Sheikhupura to any other Civil Court at Lahore.
7. I have given serious consideration to this prayer. The grounds urged in this revision petition for the transfer of the case are similar to those which I have already discussed above. Merely because the learned Civil Judge expressed the view that he had no objection if the case was transferred from his Court, would not be a ground to transfer the case, which would amount to expression of no confidence in the learned Civil Judge on the mere assertions of the parties.
8. No ground has been made out for transfer of the case from Sheikhupura to Lahore either.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- JAN MUHAMMAD through Attorney vs MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ QURESHI and another 2011 MLD 994
- I.C.I.C. vs Mian RAFIQ SAIGOL and others 1996 PLD Lahore 528
- Mian MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SAIGOL vs BCCI and others 1996 CLC 1390